Worst historical misconceptions in the internet?

[Ukas]

Have you read people spending their 5 cents that you knew were just ludicrously wrong. Share your experiences!

I have few that I have to get out of my system:

1. Few years ago I was looking for information about early machine guns. I found this site, which had few good photos about these weapons. On the other hand the information side was close to surreal. E.g. guy claimed, that Maxim model 1908/15 used 1.5 mm ammunition. Shooting needles, eh?
I'm pretty sure everyone else will understand that 15 means the year when improved model of 1908 was introduced.

Also same guy had a made up letter on his page, which was supposed to be written by Col. Thompson to the US president during the WWI. In this letter Col. Thompson introduced the idea of submachine gun to the president (using very childish language) and guy claimed that it was the first smg to be used in combat. I thought Bergman was the first?


2. Once a fellow Finn, after playing Steel Panthers game wrote how untruthfull the game is. After playing few turns as Finns, enemy, the Russians were retreating all the time, and ultimately destroyed. He said: "I am no great military historian, but isn't this just too much?" The scenario was a Winter War battle, about the Finns surprising a Russian column. Actual battle, which the scenario was based on, went like this: The Finns surprised Russian column and wiped it out. So what's wrong here?


3. This one I even saved - guy is going about the Revolutionary War:

"Hey, for Napoleonic wars, didn't those bozos walk up against artillery, then have infantry point at each other with muskets in large lines, then blow lead into each other? Wasn't this supposed to be not because it was smart, but because it was gentlemanly? Weren't we yanks called swine because we didn't stupidly walk up in large columns and broadside one another?"

Well, if not mistaken badly, large columns and lines and broadsiding were still used by the Yanks as late as in the Civil War almost 100 years later - so perhaps the Yanks learned some gentlemanly ways from those Napoleonic bozos?

 

[mrtn]

Not on the internet, but...
When we studied the ancient Egyptians back in high school, the teacher said that something happened in the year 2500. Then a girl in class asked if that was before or after Christ...

 

[Elponitnatsnoc]

Not on the internet, but...

In my history class last year, we were talking about Ptolemy being a genius and his theories. A girl who gets all A's in everything and is considered one of the smartest kids in our grade raises her hand and says:

"Well... since we have proved all of Ptolemy's theories wrong, that means he wasn't a genius."

Me:

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

Not on the internet, but...
When we studied the ancient Egyptians back in high school, the teacher said that something happened in the year 2500. Then a girl in class asked if that was before or after Christ...

I was about to say this one's not so bad, as the AD/BC isn't specified, then I realised that the ancient egyptians were mentioned. Then I noticed the actual year.

I will read more thoroughly in future

 

[Plotinus]

The worst historical misconceptions on the Internet are those involving anything to do with religion. Thus we find people believing the nonsense of Dan Brown and co. I think the most stupid of these misconceptions are those involving Mithraism - type the word into Google and you will find any number of sites telling you that Mithras had twelve disciples, was killed and rose again, was called a Good Shepherd, that his priests wore mitres and were addressed as "Pope", and any amount of other absolute rubbish.

The other most stupid misconception of this kind, which you see repeated everywhere, is the notion that the emperor Constantine told the church which books to put in the Bible, and that this happened at the Council of Nicaea. Since the decrees of the Council of Nicaea are readily available for anyone to read on the Internet itself, the pervasiveness of this myth (which I believe goes back to Voltaire) is an interesting example of the degree to which people will readily repeat a rumour without ever bothering to check whether it's actually true.

 

[allhailIndia]

The biggest one I have found, and one which goes around quite often, is that INdia has not invaded any country in its 4000 year( or any fancy figure that is needed) history.

First of all, 'India' came into existence as an independent nation in 1947, it was a colony before that, and before that....well there was no India.
Secondly, even if we assume that a central authority ruling in Delhi constitutes India, consider the military histories of Akbar, Aurangzeb, Sher Shah Suri, Allauddin Khilji, and the 'Napoleon' of pre-Islamic India, Samudragupta, not to mention his father, Chandragupta I and his son, Chandragupta II.
Thirdly, not only has 'conquest' taken place in what is now India, but also in large parts of South and South East Asia which are independent countries by themselves, e.g., Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, Maldives, to name a few. These being the achievements of the Chola father-son duo of Raja Raja and Rajadhiraja Chola.
Fourthly, even in modern India, if one examines the reports coming out of what is now Bangladesh, it was the aggressive movements of Indian troops in the East which caused Pakistani air-strikes in the west to trigger off the war. Of course, India did undertake one of the most successful full scale invasions in modern warfare to bisect Pakistan in 1971.


I suppose one should also adopt a healthy note of cynicism and skepticism when one reads any material which is sourced from the Internet.

 

[The Yankee]

3. This one I even saved - guy is going about the Revolutionary War:

"Hey, for Napoleonic wars, didn't those bozos walk up against artillery, then have infantry point at each other with muskets in large lines, then blow lead into each other? Wasn't this supposed to be not because it was smart, but because it was gentlemanly? Weren't we yanks called swine because we didn't stupidly walk up in large columns and broadside one another?"

Well, if not mistaken badly, large columns and lines and broadsiding were still used by the Yanks as late as in the Civil War almost 100 years later - so perhaps the Yanks learned some gentlemanly ways from those Napoleonic bozos?

There were pitched battles with traditional formations during the Revolutionary War as well, whenever an actual army that could meet the British was at hand. Even so, although they start out as lines and they'll fire volleys at each other, I can't recall a battle where it was entirely that way. There's usually movement somewhere, at the very least, and charges, and flanks, and bayonet/melee fighting.

This poster you quoted is either inarticulate or doesn't know much about anything.

For myself, I'd have to say the misconception that the French never won a war. You'd just have to be hard pressed to find the victories!

 

[privatehudson]

The often repeated concept that the holocaust never happened - or that it was blown out of all proportion by the allies - must rank pretty highly.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

The often repeated concept that the holocaust never happened - or that it was blown out of all proportion by the allies - must rank pretty highly.

Well ... we know who made these statements, so that is not surprising ...

 

[privatehudson]

We're looking for what is ludicrously wrong, not what is suprising.

 

[Gelion]

That fleas defeated Napoleons army in Russia.... (recently in a French newspaper). Lucky Russians they always have nature helping them

 

[silver 2039]

That fleas defeated Napoleons army in Russia.... (recently in a French newspaper). Lucky Russians they always have nature helping them

Fleas? As in the little insects I find on my dog?

 

[privatehudson]

French newspapers seem to blame anyone and anything to avoid admitting that Napoleon was responsible for his own downfall.

 

[Gelion]

Fleas? As in the little insects I find on my dog?

Yes.... aparently most French corps found were infected by them. Russians seemed to have an antidote and suffered no casualties from fleas which suggest that they were the first ones to use biological WMDs in the battlefield. Obviously it is the only reason the Great Army lost the war.....

P.S. You should have your dog checked

 

[silver 2039]

Yes.... aparently most French corps found were infected by them. Russians seemed to have an antidote and suffered no casualties from fleas which suggest that they were the first ones to use biological WMDs in the battlefield. Obviously it is the only reason the Great Army lost the war.....

P.S. You should have your dog checked

It would have been more reasonable if they blamed it on the winter at the very least...I'm sure the Russian Army had absoloutley nothing to do with his defeat.

BTW is it true that Tsar Alexander became a monk or something by faking his own death. According to wikipedia.

Yeah I need to get a flea collar or something. Not sure if they actually work.

 

[Gelion]

It would have been more reasonable if they blamed it on the winter at the very least...I'm sure the Russian Army had absoloutley nothing to do with his defeat.

BTW is it true that Tsar Alexander became a monk or something by faking his own death. According to wikipedia.

Yeah I need to get a flea collar or something. Not sure if they actually work.

They do, trust me.

We had a few Alexanders..... It may be true in relation to Alexander Ist and it may not be. Most probably not.

 

[Nobody]

Not so much a internet story as the vast majority of New Zealanders. So many people belive the there was a acient race in New Zealand called the Mori Ori and that thousands of years ago maori arived here and eat them all.

This is very wrong, in fact the Mori Ori were just a tribe of Maori who left New Zealand and colonised the cook islands. In the 19th century a group of Maori hired a british ship and sailed to the cookislands and killed the inhabitants (who never fought back)

 

[DAv2003]

One major misconception is that America single handedly won the Second World War. Though this is more to do with certain Americans rather than the Internet itself.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

I once read a blog entry by an Iranian who was trying to prove with historical and contemporary facts that the Iranians are in fact all blonde and blue eyed -and that all others are an Arab minority- and that they are the Aryan Master Race.

 

[Gelion]

I once read a blog entry by an Iranian who was trying to prove with historical and contemporary facts that the Iranians are in fact all blonde and blue eyed -and that all others are an Arab minority- and that they are the Aryan Master Race.

Actually traditional Iranians (persians) are blond and blue-eyed so he was right there.